cs.DLJun 8, 2026

Invisible to humans, visible to machines: a preregistered audit of Unicode fidelity across four biomedical bibliographic APIs

Authors: Przemysław Czuma

Abstract

Biomedical text mining, scientometrics, and the construction of training corpora for biomedical large language models (LLMs) all assume that the abstract text returned by a bibliographic API faithfully reproduces the published abstract. This pre-registered audit (OSF osf.io/269b5) tests that assumption for four widely used public APIs (PubMed E-utilities, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar) against PubMed Central (PMC) JATS XML as a common ground truth. From a complete enumeration of the PMC Open Access subset for 2024 (about 700,000 records), a simple random sample of 4,000 English-language research articles was drawn; for each, we recorded whether Unicode characters from four pre-specified classes present in the JATS abstract (typographic punctuation, mathematical/scientific symbols, Greek letters, special whitespace) were preserved by each API. Two systematic, deterministic losses met the pre-registered criterion (upper 95% CI bound below 5%): the PubMed AbstractText field preserved typographic punctuation in only 0.6% of eligible abstracts (95% CI 0.3-1.0%), and OpenAlex preserved special whitespace in 0% (0.0-0.4%). A blinded mechanism audit attributed the first loss to character substitution and the second to inverted-index serialization. Mathematical symbols and Greek letters were preserved faithfully (over 95%) by all four APIs. Separately, Crossref returned no abstract for 24.6% of papers (coverage 75.4%, 95% CI 74.1-76.7%), concentrated in specific publishers (Elsevier and ACS: 0%). Character-level fidelity is therefore API-dependent and undocumented: the same publisher-deposited JATS text carries different surface signatures depending on the serving API, with direct consequences for tokenization-sensitive bibliometrics, corpus construction, and character-level indicators of LLM-assisted writing.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 11, 2026cs.CL

Most biomedical publications show signs of LLM-assisted writing

Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing. LLM-assisted writing can be valuable by removing language barriers but at the same time causes concerns about misconduct and fraud. To inform policy decisions, it is necessary to monitor the prevalence of LLM-altered texts in scholarly publications. Despite some recent progress in this direction, no existing method can produce reliable estimates. Here we suggest and validate a new unbiased approach to estimate LLM usage in a corpus of texts based on changing word frequencies. We apply our method to the full texts of open-access biomedical papers from Pubmed Central, and show that by the end of 2025, 89% of papers show excess of LLM-associated vocabulary. We also find that LLMs are twice as likely to be used when writing a paragraph in the Discussion section (68%) compared to a paragraph in the Methods section (32%), but even inside the Methods section, the overall prevalence of LLM usage is over 50%. We believe that our estimates are crucial to shape future guidelines and policies.
Lena Holzwarth, Rita González-Márquez, Dmitry Kobak
Ai-Assisted WritingBiomedicalCorpusChatbotsSign
AskPDF
Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

Biomedical Reference Generation Remains Unreliable across 26 Large Language Models

Background. Large language models are increasingly used to help write biomedical text but may fabricate references to nonexistent work. How often large language models do so is not well characterized. Methods. We prompted 26 language models from eight developers (2023 to 2026) to supply a missing reference for each of 69 biomedical passages across ten domains. References were classified as verifiable (real paper with a resolving identifier), partial matches (real paper without a resolving identifier), fabricated (no matching indexed paper), or declined (the model refused to supply a reference). A reference was considered correct in every evaluated bibliographic field only when it was verifiable and its journal, year, and listed authors matched those of the cited paper. Results. Fabrication ranged from 10.2% (Claude Opus 4.8, which declined 52.1% of prompts) to 98.4% (Ministral 3B, which produced no verifiable reference). Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 produced similar proportions of verifiable references (77.6% and 76.6%) but named authors correctly in 78.7% and 28.7% of author-evaluable verifiable references, respectively, and were correct in every evaluated field in 54.6% and 19.9% of responses. GPT-5.5 was correct in every field in 48.1%. Across all models, 55.4% of responses were fabricated and 14.9% were correct in every field. Among the five tested models first released in 2026, the corresponding proportions were 35.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Conclusions. Fabrication remained common, and no model was correct in every evaluated bibliographic field in more than 54.6% of responses. Models that identify real papers may still misstate their metadata, so references produced with model assistance require verification before use.
Maxim Topaz, Zhihong Zhang, Nir Roguin +3
CitationsBiomedical
AskPDF
Sep 7, 2026cs.AI

Model Retirement Creates Reproducibility Risk in Biomedical AI Publications

Background. Large language models (LLMs) are being adopted in biomedical research at a rapid and accelerating pace, yet commercial services that host many widely used models operate under deprecation schedules that can complicate scientific reproducibility. Methods. We searched PubMed for original research articles from 2022 through March 2026 that applied a specific LLM to a biomedical task. An extraction agent identified model names from 61,077 article abstracts with human reviewers validating a subset for extraction accuracy. Extracted model names were normalized to canonical model identifiers. Lifecycle data (release date, retirement date, status) were compiled for the 50 most frequently used models. Results. We identified 8,931 paper-model mentions spanning 5,242 unique publications after restricting the analysis to the 50 most frequently used models. Among these mentions, 77.7% cited a commercial closed-weight model. Overall, 42% involved a model that was already retired by the time of official publication or is scheduled to retire within two years of publication. The median interval from publication to model retirement was 538 days. Conclusion. Many biomedical publications using LLMs are on a trajectory toward computational non-reproducibility after publication. Model deprecation should be treated as a core reporting and preservation issue for biomedical research.
Nathan Wolfrath, Meghan Conroy, Thomas Kosten +7
BiomedicalAcademic PapersReproducibilityAI Risk Assessment
AskPDF